Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I've said it all before but here we go again

backreaction.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 196 posts

Re: I've said it all before but here we go again

#141

Post by wussboy »

ki_ wrote: post #56

It's my opinion that a lot of science today is theoretical BS. I'm glad sometimes, someone is pointing it out. When i do it myself, i get bombarded with hate. Sigh. even when it's not science, when it's about programming (my profession). And the one thing i learned is: PEOPLE WILL NOT CHANGE THEIR MIND. You can even come with proof and people wont change. They will just ignore u after you've proven it, and keep sayin…

People do change their mind, but almost never because of adversarial debate. So, "come with proof" seldom works.

Unfortunately, you (and I) also never change our minds because of adversarial debate. It's easy to tell other people "you should change your mind", but it's hard to think "I should change my mind".

In my opinion :) it should be a badge of pride to be willing (and demonstrably able) to change ones mind about important matters.

Re: I've said it all before but here we go again

#142

Post by quantum_mcts »

jmeister wrote: post #83
quantum_mcts wrote: post #48

Quoted post unavailable.

She did publish her criticisms: https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys4079 https://twitter.com/skdh/status/1574341154757279746 There is not much market or political pressure for self-correction in academia, it's all reliant on noble behavior of the leaders of the field.

> She did publish her criticisms

Yes. And, by her own admission, nobody cared. Scientific community decided that her publications don't actually contribute much to fundamental physics.

As everyone with overinflated ego - she decided that that's because everyone else is wrong and she is right. So she decided to go to twitter and blogs and do the twitty-bloggy scandal thing. Now people are talking about her. I guess, that's what she wanted?

Re: I've said it all before but here we go again

#143

Post by f0e4c2f7 »

perihelions wrote: post #11

Twitter seems so persistently corrosive and unhappiness-inducing. Why is it? The author's complaints are about other physicists' behaviors and attitudes to her writing, but it looks like much of it is specifically about Twitter interactions: about unhappy, defective people on Twitter (smart physicists, even) drawing other people into their miasma. These are people using Twitter with good intentions : smart people who…

I find that different social networks are more "conductive" for different types feelings or states. I think a lot of it has to do a person's natural negativity bias[0] but is further amplified by the given social network. Some tend towards conducting negativity towards self. Some tend to point the finger at others. I think as we better recognize and map these bizzare (and profitable) incentive structures over time we'll be able to build apps and networks that through various tricks and shortcuts more naturally conduct positivity, love, open mindedness, a desire to unite people, etc.

I suspect in that world you'll still have a lot of networks trend negative but it would be pretty cool to get to a point where there is a choice. Sort of like ad blockers.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias

Re: I've said it all before but here we go again

#144

Post by quantum_mcts »

gramie wrote: post #137
qsdf38100 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d appreciate feedback from people downvoting. I don’t care about HN karma, I’m just curious as to why denouncing her unconstructive and angry takes on particule physics is frowned upon.

I didn't up- or down-vote you, but I would guess it is because your comment was an ad hominem, attacking her personality rather than her arguments. People can be angry for good reasons or bad, so calling her angry doesn't advance the debate at all. I'm not a physicist, but it seems to me that her main point seems valid: for the past ~50 years, theoretical physics has been engaged in a process that is rewarding (with…

> for the past ~50 years, theoretical physics has been engaged in a process that is rewarding people creating theories that cannot ever be proven true or false.

This is not true on several levels. First of all, there is a place for studying mathematical abstractions (strings and such) and there is nothing wrong with doing mathematics. Second, theoretical physics rewards theories that can be falsified - there is a huge subarea called "phenomenology" that in engaged in linking theoretical abstractions and experiments. Third, there is no "process" to the contrary and in the last ~50 a number of fundamental new discoveries was performed.

> hamster-wheel of experiments producing theories that produce more experiments

That makes no sense. Are you, like, rejecting collider experiments altogether?

Re: I've said it all before but here we go again

#145

Post by LeanderK »

ki_ wrote: post #56

It's my opinion that a lot of science today is theoretical BS. I'm glad sometimes, someone is pointing it out. When i do it myself, i get bombarded with hate. Sigh. even when it's not science, when it's about programming (my profession). And the one thing i learned is: PEOPLE WILL NOT CHANGE THEIR MIND. You can even come with proof and people wont change. They will just ignore u after you've proven it, and keep sayin…

> It's my opinion that a lot of science today is theoretical BS

Well, at least in computer science (ML) it's not what I see. It's very much empirically driven and with a heavy engineering vibe. A little bit more science would often help imho, but papers without strong result are hard to publish, even if they improve our understanding of something. It sometimes feels a bit like a large corporate research lab, which is only a small part of science. We do not only create, we want to understand!

Re: I've said it all before but here we go again

#146

Post by boltzmann-brain »

ageitgey wrote: post #105
boltzmann-brain wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I was just writing the same reply. I started writing it before you made yours. It's uncanny. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33006788

I guess we have both wasted too much time on Twitter:)

live and learn

Re: I've said it all before but here we go again

#147

Post by layer8 »

perihelions wrote: post #11

Twitter seems so persistently corrosive and unhappiness-inducing. Why is it? The author's complaints are about other physicists' behaviors and attitudes to her writing, but it looks like much of it is specifically about Twitter interactions: about unhappy, defective people on Twitter (smart physicists, even) drawing other people into their miasma. These are people using Twitter with good intentions : smart people who…

What you see on Twitter also can’t be taken as representative of (say) physicists in general, because only a small minority of physicists is active on Twitter. “Being active on Twitter” likely correlates with a set of personality traits that aren’t representative of the population at large.

Re: I've said it all before but here we go again

#148

Post by bowsamic »

User23 wrote: post #136
bowsamic wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politicians generally have almost no influence in scientific spending other than "here is a big block of R&D money". Those who dish out the money are not elected officials, at least not elected by the public.

It’s certainly true that the decades long continuing wealth transfer away from the middle class to well-connected elites that incidentally funds your work involves more than just elected politicians. As you note unelected bureaucrats also have their role to play, as do lawyers, lobbyists, and a whole host of other classes of more or less directly involved grifters in addition to ancillary beneficiaries such as yourse…

I don't think the public expect that their completely uneducated opinion on physics is in any way relevant to funding. Do you seriously think this will come as a shock to anyone?

Re: I've said it all before but here we go again

#149

Post by mola »

analog31 wrote: post #123
mola wrote: post #102

As someone who has no skin in the game at all, I find her way of presenting criticism very contrarian argumentative and snarky. She might be completely right, but I can definitely understand the reluctance to hear her out on merit of style.

To be fair, the personality and style of an author are invariably raised as issues when someone takes a contrary public position. If only she had asked more nicely.

Well, as I said, I have no skin in the game. I'm only a spectator, I have no incentives to find a nonreason to dismiss her. Still I do think her style is disrespectful although entertaining, and can imagine that if her criticism was against me, I'll have a very hard time taking it as constructive.

Re: I've said it all before but here we go again

#150

Post by iopq »

bowsamic wrote: post #129
User23 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politicians think of Big Science in terms of appropriations and sending cash to their principals, who are neither the electorate nor scientists. They don’t consider any money that buys their re-election a waste. They don’t give a rat’s ass if you discover anything and it sounds like you know it. So-called science these days is little different from military spending. As usual, follow the money.

Politicians generally have almost no influence in scientific spending other than "here is a big block of R&D money". Those who dish out the money are not elected officials, at least not elected by the public.

Yet, politicians like Rand Paul constantly complain about publicly about specific studies that sound like a waste of the public's money

https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1474101150874050561

> Pigeons playing slot machines (NIH) $465,339

even if he's not in charge of it, he still comments on the studies he thinks are a waste of the public's money

Post reply on HN